Introducing Archipelago: Podcasting Deinstitutionalized Knowledge

A project created by Léopold Lambert as the podcast platform of The Funambulist.

Featured guests for the current law section of Archipelago.

The idea of Archipelago emerged from the will to propose an alternative to the current state of Academia (whether architectural or not). The generalized absence of bridges between disciplines, the petty internal politics, the clear categorization of teachers and learners, as well as the ‘punctualization’ of learning formed the base of this will to propose something different.

Disciplines should be blurred, young thinkers should have access to platforms of expression and learning should be a continuous activity throughout life. Archipelago does not have the illusory ambition to replace the university, but more simply to constitute a free place for learning and questioning the politics of the designed environment that surrounds us all. Its medium allows anyone to listen to it in all kinds of situations: while commuting, cooking, resting, working, or any other situation you might think appropriate.

Archipelago’s editorial line follows the one constructed year after year on The Funambulist. This line is based upon the predicate that design (clothing, objects, architecture and urbanism) organizes (politically) bodies in space. Such a predicate creates the need to wonder simultaneously what a body is and how design is produced.

These questions define the list of guests for the conversation it releases. A significant number of these guests are already part of the network composed by The Funambulist. Some of them took part (or are about to) in the series of curated texts collected in the book The Funambulist Papers: Volume 1published by Punctum Books in 2013 (Volume 2 will be published later in 2014). However, the project also finds its essence in researching the work of other thinkers and creators to diversify and enrich the discourse proposed on both The Funambulistand Archipelago.

An important component in the selection of these guests is their diversity, as well as their relation to the norm from where Archipelago operates. What that means is for the platform to maintain a high awareness of whom it invites, in order to avoid the traditional pattern of domination of a type of academic actor (White Western Heterosexual Male to name only a few of their characteristics). Such practice is the minimum to be done to reduce the violence of normative processes and the ostracisation they create.

Your announcmnt states in part “What that means is for the plat­form to main­tain a high aware­ness of whom it in­vites, in order to avoid the tra­di­tional pat­tern of dom­in­a­tion of a type of aca­demic actor (White Western Heterosexual Male to name only a few of their char­ac­ter­istics). Such prac­tice is the min­imum to be done to re­duce the vi­ol­ence of norm­ative pro­cesses and the os­tra­cisa­tion they create.” Translation: White Western (i.e., European & North American) ‘Heterosexual’ males who are also ‘academic actors’ produce ‘the’ violence of ‘normative processses’ among other sins? Since I am White Heterosexual European/North American male, but note an academic ‘actor’ of the public sector but of the private sector, would I be allowed to enter your space? Would it help my chances to enter your space if you knew that I represent hundreds of non-white individuals in crimianl proceedings and deportation hearings? Would it help my chances to enter your space if you knew that I have not spent my adult life seeking to publish any ‘violent normative’ articles but instead have faught for the freedom of countless dispossessed citizens of the world instead of tyring to add to my published resume or seek position of acadmic tenure? Will you judge a person by their cover or by the text of their journey?

I am sure that, despite what you wrote, you understand that the dominant pattern I was evoking is not in terms of content but in terms of access to expression. My presentation is not against the white western heterosexual male bodies, but rather against the mechanisms that systematically privilege them.

You call yourself “White Heterosexual European/​North American male,” which I understand as descriptive of your body as immediately perceived by the otherness; however, it belongs only to you to refuse to embody these normative characteristics.

Your comment about judging a person by their cover recalls what has been slyly called “reverse racism” (I acknowledge that it is not what you wrote), which consists in an impossible victimization from bodies that are placed at the top of relations of power. Denying this impossibility implies an illusory existing social equality, a bit like when rich entrepreneurs explains that they are where they are because of their hard work, and that anyone could simply do the same if they were not so lazy. Without knowing you, I am relatively sure that you consider this kind of statements like many of us do: delusional, demagogical and often racists.

The content of your work that you defend here is not what is in question here, but once again, I have the intuition that you already knew that.

Many thanks for your insightful reply. After reading your missive, I think we have much in common – which is a good thing! At face value, you presume perhaps a little too much about my intuition in terms of what your ‘space’ or forum will seek to project. Why would I make such a statement? At first glance, only those in the ‘know’ within your space and others who deal in the ‘coded language’ of your discourse might be presume to be in the know your regarding your announcement. But to people like me of the street and in the courts where my discourse is of a different nature, your decoded explanation is not apparent in your announcement to those of us from the outside looking in. Your announcement, absent your informative reply, presumes too much and does not do justice to your statement which I quote in part:

“I am sure that, despite what you wrote, you understand that the dominant pattern I was evoking is not in terms of content but in terms of access to expression. My presentation is not against the white western heterosexual male bodies, but rather against the mechanisms that systematically privilege them. ”

Clearly, I’m sure you agree, that ‘mechanism that systematically privilege’ violent normative discourses are not confined only to racial attributes. The sub set of variables that support any ‘mechanisms that systematically privilege’ the violent discourses you cite extend well beyond the example cited in your announcement; yet, your forum announcement for some reason chose to highlight the ‘white male heterosexual’.

While your reply has greater clarity for me, your forum announcement is misleading and discursively narrow in its racial distraction. My suggestion would be to fore ground your reply as part of your announcement so folks like us can understand or not misconstrue your meaning. Your dilemma is not unique, the discursive codes of the Academy do more to confuse than clarify; however, I believe this exchange shows there is plenty of space to explain nuanced positions without any overreliance on presumed knowledge of narrowly understood coded jargon. This will always be a work in progress. Write for the street and your work will extend beyond the Academy. I wish your forum well.